Fama and French (J Financ, 33, 3–56. 1992); Fama and French (J Financ, 47, 427–465. 1993) provide discipline altering studies which ended the dominance of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and supplanted it with the Fama and French three factor model. The CAPM identified the market factor as the only systematic risk factor; the three factor model added size and value as systematic risk factors. The latter study validated the size and value risk factors by showing a correlation between portfolio and factor time-series returns. This model has been widely accepted but has proved “open-ended” as researchers have mimicked this effort to identify a large number of additional factors. Harvey et al. (Rev Financ Stud, 29, 5–68. 2016) note that researchers have empirically identified 316 factors tested as systematic risk factors and argue that the discipline needs to identify the few relevant risk factors. Motivated by this seemingly futile effort to find the correct set of risk factors, we contribute by suggesting necessary conditions to validate empirically identified risk factors. We apply these conditions to the factors of the original Fama-French model. Based on our analysis we argue that neither the size nor value mimicking factors should be considered systematic risk factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We recognize Roll’s (1977) critique that proxies such as the S&P 500 Index are not perfect measures of the market identified in the CAPM.
It seems paradoxical to claim a time series relationship in absence of a cross-sectional relationship. If the market factor explains portfolio time series returns, that relationship identified in this explanation is measured by market beta. If portfolio market betas are consistent over time as shown by Fama MacBeth (1973) then a cross-sectional relationship between beta and returns is a mere identity. Indeed, the same assumption of rational pricing within a market that is used to argue that size and value proxy for risk requires the argument that a cross-sectional relationship between beta and returns must exist given a time series relationship between the market factor and portfolio returns.
We also conduct regressions for all possible combinations. Because of space and focus considerations we only report results for the simple regressions here. Full results are available from the author.
The Barra Model (Barra Risk Factor Analysis) is a multi-factor model created by Barra Inc., which is used to measure the overall risk associated with a security relative to the market. The Barra Model uses a number of key fundamental factors that represent features of an investment. Some of these factors include yield, earnings growth, volatility, liquidity, momentum, price-earnings ratio, size, leverage, and growth.
Banz W (1981) The relation between return and market value of common stocks. J Financ Econ 9:3–18
Basu S (1983) The relationship between earnings yield, market value and return for NYSE common stocks: further evidence. J Financ Econ 12:129–156
Campbell J, Hilscher J, Szilagyi J (2008) In search of distress risk. J Financ 63:2899–2939
Carhart M (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J Financ 52:57–82
Chan KC, Lakonishok J (1993) Are the reports of beta’s death premature? J Portf Manag 19:51–62
Chan KC, Lakonishok J (2004) Value and growth investing: review and update. Financial Analyst Journal January/February:71-86
Cochrane J (2011) Presidential address: discount rates. J Financ 4:1047–1108
Daniel K, Titman S (1997) Evidence on the characteristics of cross sectional variation in stock returns. J Financ 52:1–33
Dichev I (1998) Is the risk of bankruptcy a systematic risk. J Financ 53:1131–1147
Dijk M (2011) Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns. J Bank Financ 35:3263–3274
Fama E, French K (1992) The cross section of expected stock returns. J Financ 47:427–465
Fama E, French K (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33:3–56
Fama E, French K (1995) Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns. J Financ 50:131–155
Fama E, French K (2015) A five-factor asset pricing model. J Financ Econ 116:1–22
Fama E, MacBeth J (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: empirical tests. J Polit Econ 81:607–636
Ferson W, Harvey C (1999) Conditioning variables and the cross section of stock returns. J Financ 54:1325–1360
Harvey C, Liu Y, Zhu H (2016). .. and the cross-section of expected returns. Rev Financ Stud 29 (1):5–68
Hou K, Xue C, Zhang L (2015) Digesting anomalies: an investment approach. Rev Financ Stud 28(3):650–705
Hur J, Pettengill G, Singh V (2014) Market states and the risk-based explanation of the size premium. J Empir Financ 28:139–150
Lakonishok J, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1994) Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. J Financ 49:1541–1578
Loughran T (1997) Book-to-market across firm size, exchange, and seasonality: is there an effect? J Financ Quant Anal 32:249–268
Pettengill G, Sundaram S, Mathur I (1995) The conditional correlation between beta and returns. J Financ Quant Anal 30:101–116
Pettengill G, Chang G, Hueng J (2014) Comparing value and growth mutual funds: new evidence. Working paper.
Piotroski J (2000) Value investing: the use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. J Account Res 38:1–41
Reinganum M (1981) Misspecification of capital asset pricing: empirical anomalies based on earnings’ yields and market values. J Financ Econ 9:19–46
Roll R (1977) A critique of the asset pricing theory’s tests, Part I: On past and potential testability of the theory. J Financ Econ 4:129–176
Rosenberg B, Reid K, Lanstein R (1985) Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency. J Portf Manag 11:9–17
Vassalou M, Xing Y (2004) Default risk in equity returns. J Financ 59:831–868
Woodley M, Jones S, Reburn J (1985) Value stocks and accounting screens: has a good rule gone bad? Journal of Accounting and Finance 11:87–104
About this article
Cite this article
Pettengill, G., Chang, G. Validating empirically identified risk factors. J Econ Finan 43, 162–179 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-018-9438-x
- Capital Asset Pricing Model
- Fama-French 3-Factor Model
- Systematic Risk Factors
- Risk-adjusted Returns